Beginners guide to nuclear power stations ?

Go on then Z-11, quote the person or organisation quoted by Wikipedia whose work you find so laughable.

oh i know this one it is this bunch of charlatans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipcc

So what’s your problem with the Wiki entry Junkjard? Whatever you think of the IPCC the Wiki content is remarkarkably complete and includes criticisms.

Edukator – sorry mate, I’ve just got to ask again, just to check – Wikipedia – you are joking right? 😆

I’m not your mate, Z-11. I will be do my best to avoid ever coming into contact with you. There aren’t many forum posters I’d cross the road to avoid but you are one of them. Do you have any disticnitve signs so that when I ride Swinley I’ll know when to sprint off?

Hahahaha – sorry, **** me, you were actually being serious, I didn’t realise 😯

Wikipedia?

oh, my giddy aunt… oh my oh my… lordy lordy…

wikipedia?

where to start… 😕

*best * thread * ever*

Back to Fukushima. Some France 3 journos have just driven as close as possible to the plant. Approaching the town they were already 25 times over “safe radioactive limits”. They stopped when the buildings were just in view of the telephoto lense with the geiger counter beeping away merrily and dangerous level on the readout.

Maybe they got their “safe radioactive limits” from Wikipedia?

😆

How much longer are you going to cane this one Zulu-Eleven ?

You really are a childish muppet.

And you wonder why I can rarely be arsed to enter into a serious debate with you ?

Aah, diddums Ernie 🙂

Maybe if I used wiki as an authoritative factual reference more often, you’d feel more comfortable with the prospect of serious debate 😆

So what’s your problem with the Wiki entry Junkjard?

None it was a reference to Z-11 and was a comment at him not you.Sorry for the confusion. I am not an climate sceptic.
I am sure you can understand why, a number of us choose not to respond to him. I have file blocker but cant even see his posts but you can still tell he is up to his usual style/tricks starts of reasonable, uses some science then just ends up at some sort of mocking ad hominem attack. iirc he calls it scribbling across a thread/forum.

An aecdote: When the Tchernobyl cloud dumped a lot of rain over Wales we thought it might be a good idea to make sure the water we were distributing was safe to drink. We weren’t in theory responsible for radioactivity in the water but felt a responsibility to protect consumers.

Debate in the office, phone calls were made but we found we were on our own; the radiological protection board being completely and utterly useless, providing no infromation whatsoever in the early stages. We didn’t have a geiger counter but after a few minutes realised they’d probably have one in the local school or university physics department. More phone calls were made and a few hours later we had enough information to decide what to do.

If you want information o radioactivity levels you’d do better to ask Greenpeace or the local schoool than the radiological protection board (or whatever it’s called now)..

**** me, are you still smarting over the name thing Junky?

TJ – if you’re accusing others of not answering your questions, maybe you’d care to point out somewhere in this thread where you’ve answered questions posed to you. You could start by showing me where you answered my last question to you – I presume you must have.

Junkyard – Member
None it was a reference to Z-11 and was a comment at him not you.Sorry for the confusion. I am not an climate sceptic.
I am sure you can understand why, a number of us choose not to respond to him

The best policy. Sometimne I feel it nessasary to correct the most stupid factual innacuracies he comes out with such as less than 100 deaths from Chernobyl when even the pessimistec report from the WHO that he quotes with very narrowly drawn paramenters givce 4000 and other reputable cources give 25 000 or so.

However it is totally pointless getting into any sort of debate with him.

TJ – quite simple, one word answer – bullshit!

Regardless, your claim is that, and I quote

10 000 died because of Chernobyl and many more peoples health was affected

ten thousand died – not might die, not potentially could die – you specifically claimed that 10,000 died Which is quite simply not true

it is totally pointless getting into any sort of debate with him

you cant really debate with him he just gives the facade of one [though his reasoning is not great]then he just insults you. He must be doing it by now surely

Oh indeed he is junkyard. Rather comical – because he does not agree with me I am a liar. Its laughably poor.

Aracer – what question? IIRC you did ask one or two things obvuiously intended as a rhehtorical trap that I ignored but if you have a real question I will try to answer

OIC – so it’s OK to ignore rhetorical traps, but not strawmen? Not that it was one, was just trying to clarify exactly what point your strawman was trying to make.

so it’s OK to ignore rhetorical traps

well it is generally considered foolish to not avoid a trap you have seen.

was just trying to clarify exactly what point your strawman was trying to make.

was it trying to misrepresent your position as that is what a straw man argument does 🙄 You could have asked a question you know.

Aracer – you have lost me. got a question for me I will try to answer it.

How on Earth has this thread got to 800+ posts??? 😯

Aha, the Elfin defence – trash the thread with pictures and close down debate when you’ve been proved to be talking out of your sphincter.

Ah. How nice to be thought of. 😀 I’m very flattered, Labby.

Although I must correct you on one small point:

The Elfinmanoeuvre is employed when we’ve decided I am right, and there is no point in continuing a silly argument any more. Turn negative energy into something productive. Many people enjoy it actually.

This fascinating fact comes courtesy of Ernie, from whom I learned that small turtles live in Atocha station in Madrid. They’re quite happy there.

Maybe we could have something similar here. Wombats at Waterloo, Muntacs in Marylebone, and, wait for it…………

…(cos it’s gonna be good)…….

….BEARS IN PADDINGTON!!!!!!

😀

Good, innit? I think it’ll be a winner.

(Scuttles off to discuss idea with Boris)

The question TJ was: would it be OK for us to have nuclear power if all countries in the world had it? Feel free to ignore it as a rhetorical trap, but if the answer is no, then your question about why other countries shouldn’t have it is completely pointless. If the answer is yes, then that makes all your other arguments pointless (though it would at least enable me to provide a sensible answer to the other countries question, otherwise I have insufficient information). Actually I suppose it is a rhetorical trap – I can see why you don’t want to answer.

How on Earth has this thread got to 800+ posts?

I guess some of us are enjoying the argument, and have realised that this thread might make it to 1000 so long as we throw in something to keep it going now and again. 😉

Though I’m curious given your apparent disdain for this thread and that I don’t think you’ve contributed for a couple of weeks, are you actually reading it all, or do you do a vanity search?

Wellt that is a fairly meaningless question but IMO the answer would still be no – two wrongs do not make a right and just because someone else even an overwhelming majority of people do something that you think is foolish there is no need for us to do so as well.

800+ posts? there is actually some good info in here and some good debating ponts. I have learnt a bit about thorium cycle nukes that I didn’t know and I understand the arguement for nuclear expansion more even tho i still think it muddleheaded.

and we want a serious topic to get more posts than the bivvy thread

Wellt that is a fairly meaningless question

Good description. Of your “why can we have them but not other countries question”. Especially if whether other countries have them or not makes no difference to your attitude to them. Clearly it’s not actually worth me wasting my time answering that then.

Aracer – no its not the same at all as anyone c an see – but I knew you would use it as an excuse.

You don’t want to answer that question because it points out the logical fallacies in your position.

According to the pro nukes that nukes are so good we must have them to prevent global warming but will deny them to countries we do not trust. Now if they are so useful that we should have them despite the known and serious drawbacks then how can you justify denying them to other countries?

Apoart from anything else that means they will not actually make any significant difference to CO2 outputs globally

No, I cba answering it given how apparently insignificant it is, and the difficulty of explaining to you why it’s a complete strawman. If you were actually bothered I might have a go. The only logical fallacy is your question, and your assertion that if not all countries in the world have them nobody should (oh, and that 10 nuclear stations in the UK apparently makes less difference to global warming than 5 here and 5 in Iran).

Aracer – you still don’t get it.

Now we know that nukes have serious drawbacks form a low supply of fuel to the issues over waste and the cost of building them. However you believe the case for having them is so good that it outweighs the disadvantages. So why would you deny them to some countries if they are that good. 10 here and 10 in Iran and 10 in Afghanistan would make more impact Global warming than just 10 here.

Its no strew man – its a very pertinent point tht shows just how inadequate the case for having new nukes in the UK is

Druidh was right – no pro nuke will answer it

So you don’t see the contradiction with arguing on one hand that the fuel supply is low, and on the other that we should have lots more of them? Lots of us have argued the various fallacies in your question, but as usual you just keep ignoring those points, as seemingly we haven’t given the answer you’re after.

If you’re into answering questions, how about this one for you: Given we have lots of power stations getting to the end of their life, that we’re not going to manage to make huge reductions in energy consumption (much as that might be the answer in your idealised world) and that only a maximum of 3GW (peak) tidal is coming online in the next 10 years, how do you propose we generate electricity to stop the lights going out?

Of course no anti-nuke will answer that question.

Is it not fair to suggest that some states are less stable than others? Therefore some states as a whole (not talking about races or nations) can be less trusted to handle technology that *could* be used to produce nuclear weapons?

Anyway doesn’t the UN allow states peaceful use of nuclear power..?

Aracer I have actually answered that several times-

I do not accept that energy usage reduction is impossible. I would go for energy usage reduction across the board – not just electricity but heating and so on as well. Massivly increased renewables – 3 GW ( actually significantly more) is what is planned for Scotland – it could be more and England could do some as well.

If there remains a gap then new efficient fossil plants mainly local CHP. We still should end up with being able to meet kyoto targets as we can reduce CO2 emissions form all areas of energy usage – and CHP reduces CO2 output even if fossil fueled as its more efficient.

As electricity productionis only waht around 25% of energy usage a 5% reduction is energy usage across the baord is equivalent in CO2 production to 20% reeduction in electricty – which is far more saving of CO2 production hat a few new nukes – as they produce a lot of CO2 especially during construction

Elfinsafety – Member
How on Earth has this thread got to 800+ posts???

empty vessels make most noise….

I have actually answered that several times-

Dual standards, TJ? By the criteria you use to assess other people’s answers to your questions, no you haven’t. You can’t cover it by energy use reduction as enough of that isn’t feasible in the timescale – I even pointed that out in the question, so by including it you’re not answering the question. Though you do actually raise a new point with your suggestion that a 5% reduction in energy usage is equivalent to 20% reduction in electricity – you can’t do it that way. A 5% reduction in the amount of energy used to heat a house is a 0% reduction in energy usage if you have gas heating. A 5% reduction in the amount you drive is 0% reduction in electricity. We’re talking here about keeping the lights switched on, so you have to reduce eletricity usage for it to do any good.

Massivly increased renewables – 3 GW ( actually significantly more) is what is planned for Scotland – it could be more

It won’t be more – not within the timescales under discussion, otherwise there would be some sign of it already. I’m actually being pretty generous with 3GW given what is documented as in the pipeline, and given that at least one official document seems to want to include wind (and waves) in the figures we’re interested in.

quite simply the ‘edukator’ guy is a numpty…. my comments about his own effort have been that he’s effort for his own lift are laudable….

unfortunately his solutions which may works for a distinctly odd german guy living in rural france do not work for humanity as a whole….

most people do do not live in his simplistic world… most of humanity live in densly populated urdan environments…..

when you’ve clearly got enough funds to endulge in your own environmental experiment that’s fine… but the options you’ve adopted at a small scale are extortionatley expensive for society…. and the burden will be carried by the poor… you may acheive a SIMPLE payback in your heavily subsidised world on your insignifiant time period but don’t pretnd that that works for humanity as a whole

you should try reading other peoples posts properly instead of going around and around like a broken record……..

Aracer I am looking at the energy usage and CO2 production of the country as a whole. 5% reduction in energy usage across the board would reduce the countries CO2 output by the same amount as a 20% reduction in Electricity usage.

Why you insist energy efficiency measures cannot make a 5% reduction across the board I 10 years I don’t know. Lack of ambition? You don’t have any hard data to back that up it is pure surmise.

My way there might be more CO2 out put from electricity production but less from the country as a whole.

so once again you fiddle the figures to get teh answer you want – wind and wave can be apart of it – of course they can. You still need back up capacity but they can generate some electricity over the year in a CO2 free way.

Your way would increase CO2 production over the next ten years due to the massive amounts of CO2 created in the building of newnukes – they payback would come in later years but the CO2 penalty of nukes is heavily front loaded.

I am talking about keeping the lights switched on whilst reducing CO2 production from the country as a whole. So a 5% reduction in energy usage for heating is a 5% reduction in CO2 output from the country – which is the critical thing.

I do not accept that energy usage reduction is impossible.

No, just extremely difficult.

But Aracer does think its impossible. He has nothing to base that on. 10 years to reduce energy consumption by 5% accross the board is a perfectly achievable target.

But it suits aracers argument to pretend that its impossible.

How on Earth has this thread got to 800+ posts??

Because the energy question, and climate change, are crucially important topics.